Eliran Bar-El is a sociologist whose work is primarily concerned with the sociological (re-)production of intellectual figures and intellectual intervEliran Bar-El is a sociologist whose work is primarily concerned with the sociological (re-)production of intellectual figures and intellectual interventions. His most recent book, How Slavoj Became Žižek, is – as the title suggests – an application of those research interests to the iconic Slovenian intellectual, Slavoj Žižek. The book seeks to explain Žižek’s rise to popularity as a public intellectual, especially in the United States, and to make sense of the popular attraction to his work, which – like the man himself – is highly idiosyncratic and unusual.
Before I proceed any further with my comments, I should mention that this book was retracted by the University of Chicago Press, due to charges of plagiarism leveled against Bar-El. Although I am not aware of the specifics, the Press made the following statement on their website: “This title is no longer available for sale. After its original publication, the Press and the author were made aware of several insufficient, missing, or erroneous citations of source material upon which the author builds his argument. The Press and the author are grateful to the observant readers who identified this, and the author apologizes for any inconvenience and harm caused.” And so, again, while I’m not aware of the plagiarized material in question, I think the entire book needs to be bracketed off and approached with caution, as these charges are quite serious. In the academic world, this is basically the equivalent of intellectual suicide.
Putting those charges aside for a moment, I think the book still has a number of redeemable qualities, and Bar-El has some interesting things to say. He presents Žižek’s popularity as an enigma of sorts – something that needs to be questioned and interrogated. To be sure, there is something inherently strange about the appeal of Žižek inside and outside of academia, when he has spent his life’s work peddling mostly dead ideas (i.e., German idealism, psychoanalysis and Marxism) from dead figures (i.e., Hegel, Marx, Freud and Lacan). This is even more curious in the American context, where Žižek’s notoriety has reached a level of pop-cultural superstardom enjoyed by few other academic philosophers-turned-public figures.
In a strange way, Bar-El’s book reminds me of Nietzsche’s Ecce Homo, but as an intellectual biography rather than an autobiography. In attempting to explain Žižek’s global appeal, particularly since the 9-11 attacks, the book gestures at many of the same value judgments that Nietzsche set forth as guides to understanding himself. If you recall, Ecce Homo – translated in English to Behold the Man – is divided into four parts with peculiar titles, each seeking to ironically justify and prop-up his own legacy. The colourful titles were: “Why I am So Wise”, “Why I Am So Clever”, “Why I Write Such Good Books”, and “Why I am A Destiny”. Although I don’t get the sense that Bar-El thinks that these judgments apply to Žižek, I do think that his analysis seeks to understand why Žižek’s fans are inclined to appraise him in this light.
Thus, Bar-El asks us to join him in ‘beholding the man’. The book uses “positioning theory” to identify key aspects of Žižek’s persona, ideas, and social history, which combined to form his “super-position” on the global stage. I won’t break his argument down into all of its component parts, but there’s one really crucial point he makes that I want to touch on, and that is the “sacrificial” quality of Žižek’s super-position as academic philosopher-turned-public philosopher-turned-meme. As Bar-El writes: “This positioning again brings Žižek closer to a Socrates (of the digital age), who, according to [Alain] Badiou, was ‘the first philosopher but also the first analyst.’ While Socrates sacrificed himself physically for corrupting the youth, Žižek paid a metaphysical sacrifice for his position through the media-academic trade-off.” It’s the stereotypical narrative: an academic steps outside of the ivory tower and, as punishment for his sinful transgression, is cast out by his peers, like Adam and Eve from Eden. As Žižek’s public appearances grew, his respect within the academy diminished. Yet, despite losing respect among his peers, his global influence undeniably grew. Love him or hate him, Žižek is clearly a noteworthy figure of contemporary thought.
The history of philosophy as an academic discipline is a contentious matter, and rightly so. The fact that philosophy has, for the most part, retreated behind the walls of the university is ironic when we consider its origin story. After all, philosophy began in the public sphere, in the streets of Athens, through democratic dialogue and open lines of questioning. It often led to death – as in the case of Socrates – or extreme poverty and social alienation – as in the case of Diogenese.
We can see, therefore, how the bourgeois professionalization of philosophy, and its subsequent safeguarding within the private realm, is itself a Hegelian reversal of philosophy as it was initially understood and practiced in antiquity. Perhaps those “sacrificial” intellectuals like Žižek, who intentionally straddle the popular/academic threshold, are the synthetic products of this public-private swing of the philosophic pendulum. Is a return to the public sector the proper site of philosophic inquiry? If philosophy is a public product, then is the popularity of public intellectuals like Žižek, or Chomsky, or Cornel West really such a bad thing?...more
Loading...
